New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte has cancelled her plan to campaign with Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, who said that when a woman becomes pregnant during a rape, "that's something God intended."

Mourdock said on Wednesday said he abhors rape and meant only that God creates life.

But Ayotte's spokesman, Jeff Grappone, said that the senator disagrees with Mourdock's comments, which do not represent her views. Ayotte was scheduled to campaign with Mourdock on Wednesday, but canceled her trip and is in New Hampshire instead.

You can always count on a Northeast RINO to throw the GOP under the bus. Ayotte, being a woman, might have helped Mourdock by showing that she still supports him. But no, she avoids him like the plague instead. This story led the ABC Radio news at the top of the hour. Thanks little Kelly.

Kelly Ayotte is no RINO. I have met her personally on several occasions. She is and has long been a solid conservative, both as New Hampshire state attorney general and as our junior Senator. Her American Conservative Union rating is 95%.

Maybe God “allowed”, but theologically, I would not go so far as “intended”. But God has a pretty good track record of turning unfortunate circumstances into great blessings. I do believe that Jesus has at least one, maybe two, prostitutes in his geneology. But Mourdock is correct that life is a gift and blessing of God . . . even one that is the consequences of rape. This is NOT a soundbite issue.

But why is that even with the public knowledge that the Media is our enemy, and that the Democrats are all-in on the GOP “War on Women” line, that we keep nominating absolute morons who walk right into the trap and give the Democrats and the media EXACTLY EVERYTHING they need right at the worst possible time, over and over again.

Do we need to start a different vetting process as Conservatives? Because it seems like we are nominating a lot of Faithful Christian, solid Conservatives who have a tendency to say really, really, really, really stupid things at the absolute worst possible times.

We might lose as many as three Senate seats in red states in an an election where the GOP wins the White House, mostly because of Conservative candidates with an epidemic of foot-in-mouth syndrome.

If you read his full statement, instead of the deliberately misleading headlines in the leftwing press, it makes perfect sense.

The basic Christian view is that although the body of a new baby comes from the mother and father, the soul is created by God.

Maybe he’d have done better to have said that even a child of rape is an innocent human being, who does not deserve to be killed for the sins of his rapist father. But what he said was perfectly fine—except that it allowed the liars in the press to distort it.

Then somebody better start a near blood purge of the ACU committee that picks the issues for determining one’s non-RINO-ness. Ayotte doesn’t hack it. Not that she’s not RTL, it’s that she’s lied about it and used it to raise funds, then when she’s called ................... nope, not RTL at all! Not even a Social Con.

Isn’t the GOP supposed to be the party of personal responsibility? Mourdock said something he knew with 100% certainty would reflect badly on him and hurt other members of the party. After what happened with Aking a little a couple months ago, it’s not possible Mourdock did this by accident. The question is: what is his motive? I don’t feel sorry for him a bit. He deliberately hurt himself and his party. I have no idea why.

18
posted on 10/24/2012 12:01:04 PM PDT
by nickcarraway
(Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. Im not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.)

I'm 100% pro-life, and so is Kelly. And I certainly don't believe that every terrible thing that happens to people, including rape-induced pregnancy, is because "God intended it". It is not God's will that evil people do bad things to others. At least that is what my faith teaches.

The proper questions are: what is the moral thing for the person so affected to do about it, what role should government in a free society have in influencing or limiting that decision, and under which circumstances may the state exercise such power? These are not easy questions, nor are there easy answers - no matter how passionately we may feel about the subject.

"The proper questions are: what is the moral thing for the person so affected to do about it, what role should government in a free society have in influencing or limiting that decision, and under which circumstances may the state exercise such power? These are not easy questions, nor are there easy answers - no matter how passionately we may feel about the subject."

Good questions and beyond Mourdock's tin ear for being drawn into his response. Yes, his statement was twisted. Yes, the media is hostile. All of this should have been known and anticipated in advance. The playing field isn't level and Republican candidates have to think before they reply. Also, the troubling questions you allude to above, such as does the state lock up and restrain a mother who intends to abort a baby conceived in rape? Does the state charge a mother who aborts under these circumstances with murder? Each question and answer raises new challenges and the power of the state.

NOTE: Not everybody is a Calvinist ~ but Calvinists ARE Calvinists. They have an entirely different basis for their analysis than you do and use language in different ways that are frequently not understood by non-Calvinists.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.